Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tilikum (orca)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   keep. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 09:26, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Tilikum (orca)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This subject is too recent and the notability of the subject won't last through next week. This information is already covered at List of captive orcas. This just mirrors the other. Jojhutton (talk) 04:18, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep has killed three people over a period of 20 years, so I can't see how 1991 is too recent. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 04:20, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Unpleasant topic, I don't like it, but clearly has been given more than just passing news coverage. Something people have a sincere interest in learning more about. Pardon the crystal ball, but will end up being important in the history of captive orcas. Kitfoxxe (talk) 04:38, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Not a one-time incident, covered in reliable sources. Avram (talk) 04:58, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The story of Tilikum will be referenced for a long time in discussions ranging from aquatic captivity to zoos in general. Also, several far less notable/notorious orcas have separate pages also connected to List of captive orcas. Ricegator (talk) 05:12, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep No valid reason for deletion given. riffic (talk) 07:59, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable incident particularly considering past history of the orca. —220.101.28.25 (talk) 13:30, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Nomination sounds like this is a new article, whereas it was created on 31 December 2005, then merged into and redirected to Captive orcas on 21 February 2009. Now 're-created' 28 February 2010 and updated. Am I correct? —220.101.28.25 (talk) 13:30, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That does appear to be correct. -- Dennis The Tiger  (Rawr and stuff) 16:11, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Given the coverage behind the recent death that Tilikum noted, it appears that he is pretty notable now.  Unfortunately for him, it's infamy. =( -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 16:12, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. He's earned his infamy.  Huge bastard.  I'd stay away for fear of well, what happened.  He might not be hostile to people, but he's big enough to accidentally kill people easily.--Marhawkman (talk) 17:22, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - WP:SNOW, anyone? -- Dennis The Tiger  (Rawr and stuff) 19:18, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - A bit surprised by this - nom appears to have read the recent news, but not the history of this animal (how many serial killer orcas are there?) However, I would like to mention that a ton of vandalism has been done to the page since this nominators prod, which I am working on cleaning up now. Turlo Lomon (talk) 19:21, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note - Vandalism has been cleaned up and warnings have been issued. I reverted back to the last good version. Turlo Lomon (talk) 19:33, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Many print articles in reliable sources, (books, journals, and periodicals) had significant coverage of this animal before the most recent killing. That helps to get beyond objections on the grounds of Wikipedia not being a crime blog, and not having articles about creatures known only for one event. I see in books at least for sure and perhaps (no preview). In Google news archive there are a number of stories about Tilikum before the recent killing: . Add in the growing coverage of the latest killing and the case for a separate article seems strong: . Edison (talk) 20:37, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * keep - the article goes back to December 2005. If there was reason for Tilikum to be in Wikipedia in 2005 then there certainly isn't any less reason for inclusion now. Artw (talk) 22:38, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * A Reflection -The recentism of this newly created article is evident in List of captive orcas article traffic for January's article traffic. (less than 100 hits per day and there are 22 orcas in the article). Then look at February's. There is an obvious and expected spike in traffic due to the WP:Recentism. It was inevitable. Yet now look at yesterdays traffic for Tilikum_(orca). Around 2000 views. It would seem that List of captive orcas is satisfying the people who are looking for more info. I suggest, rather than create a new article that just mirrors List of captive orcas, why not expand the Tilikum section, which seems to be where most people are going anyway. Besides in a year, this article wont get but 10-20 views a day, because it will be forgotten. Thus the reason why wikipedia has a recentism policy.--Jojhutton (talk) 02:12, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment The pattern of viewership or hits per day for an article is in no way a deletion criterion nor basis for determining notability, per any guideline or policy I can find. Edison (talk) 14:54, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Rebuttal I was only using it to juxtapose how irrelevant the new article will become. Very little traffic, compared to the parent article on captive orcas. That, I think, is where most of the traffic will go, and that should be the focus of the efforts.--Jojhutton (talk) 00:04, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Also because of WP:SIZE Concerns and the fact that Google has not updated The link to Tilikum pages to the stand alone article yet, which will drive traffic to that other page.  Sawblade5  (talk to me undefined my wiki life) 18:39, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep and move on to other matters. No prejudice to a new AfD in six months if flurry of fame was fleeting, but Timothy Treadwell still gets 1,000 hits a day.--Milowent (talk) 04:17, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Then I guess we'll see this again in six months.--Jojhutton (talk) 12:52, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.153.84.10 (talk) 20:25, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Seems Notable. Note The recent look of the article may not be Vandalisim as I had a history merge from Tilikum from when it existed last and the AFD Debate can be seen at Articles for deletion/Tilikum but was involved with many other less notable articles about other orcas, so it was lost in the mass debate. The WP:Notability speaks for itself as it is the largest orca in captivity and the three incidents it was involved in.  Sawblade5  (talk to me undefined my wiki life) 18:36, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - this may be the peak of the interest in coverage, but the creature has received coverage in past decades, is not a generic example, and is likely to remain notable example; if so much later we still find it worthy to have an article on Jumbo, it is hard to assume that Tilikum will not be considered notable in the future as well. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:59, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep This whale is not only in the new now due to the recent attack on a trainer but has also been in the news in regards to two other people's death. Highly notable, significant independent coverage, article must stay. --Volbeatfan (talk) 04:58, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. -- Avenue (talk) 17:03, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep No valid reason for deletion given. Obviously notable. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 18:49, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.